Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Beginning first read-through of the article as nominated. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is getting a fair bit of new work today. I'll hold fire till things have settled down. Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination reignited interest in squeezing the last refinements out of the PR. I think by the end of today most issues will be worked out. If not remaining issues are not that big relative to the entire article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. I'll look in again during the weekend, and start work in earnest if all is bedded down. Interesting about the reignition of the PR. I had long thought it good practice to close a PR before going on to GA, but now I see there are advantages in not doing so. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly I did not expect you to pick up the review right away. If I had, I would have closed down the PR. I think the coast is clear now although the article talk is still somewhat active.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you can shut down the PR. There is only one open item on it, as far as I can see, and the point is a rather obscure one about the movie music. I find the point theoretically interesting, but I agree that is certainly not essential to address it for GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Im not sure it is that obscure as the movie this is based on does feature a score. There is obviously a reason they choose not to go down the jukebox musical route and there are plenty of sources going into why they choose the movie, I'm sure the music must be mentioned somewhere. Not that i think the point would ever stop the article being a GA, just that its a valid topic for the article to have in it.Blethering Scot 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho! Shall begin first proper read-through tomorrow. Looking forward to it. Shall report back during the week. Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to nominator and other interested editors for my delay. RL is keeping me away from detailed WP work this week. I hope to be free from Friday p.m. and will assuredly put this at the top of my to-do list. Sorry for straining your patience meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get to this today and don't know when you will, you could just put it back in the queue for another nominator. There is a December Backlog Drive and someone will likely take this up pretty quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now have time firmly set aside to start work, but I still see significant changes going on in the article. A great lump of 600 + bytes appeared just today on what at first sight seems a peripheral matter. If this doesn't settle down I think I must fail the GAN for instability. I wonder if the various authors might be best advised to withdraw the GAN and agree on a text before resubmitting it. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:WIAGA, instability means edit warring. It does not include upkeep of an article with an evolving history. Adding an event that happened this week to the article is not in the remotest sense considered instability for a GAN. Can you imagine articles of movers and shakers of the world ever getting to GA status if keeping them up to date counted as instability. (FYI, look at the date — April 2008 — John McCain achieved GA. That was during the heat of the 2008 election cycle. I am sure you understand how much that article was evolving at the time.) If you see an issue that should be reported for WP:3RR, then instability applies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony that the editing about the Thanksgiving issue does not constitute instability, even though I think that the mention of trending on Twitter is not encyclopedic, especially because the trending was caused by people opining that the transvestite theme of the numbers sung was inappropriate for a television broadcast aimed at families with young children. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in terms of whether the Thanksgiving issue was a peripheral matter please note this page viewership spike, which was the only reason it was added. On the talk page there is debate about its removal and your opinion will probably decide the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have read and reread the existing text. The article, in my present judgment, meets all the GA criteria. From the outset my opinion was that it meets criteria 1, 2, 4 and 6, and I accept the editors' assurance that it meets criterion 5 as well. It clearly meets criterion 3a; I was worried about 3b when looking in earlier, but the move of the awards info to its own article reflects the summary style guideline.

It is my usual practice to spell-check a GAN article and also to make any suggestions that occur to me for improving the prose. No problem on either front here. The criterion that "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" means what it says, and I deplore it when GA reviewers presume to tell nominators what they ought to have written even though this criterion is, as here, fully met. If I had a view about the Thanksgiving matter it would be, in my view, ultra vires to insist on my view here: does the page "address the main aspects of the topic" or not? Yes it does. Does it go "into unnecessary detail"? I cannot see that there is a case to be made to that effect.

I shall have one last perusal in the morning and then, barring the unforeseen, complete the formalities tomorrow. Parenthetically, The editors who have brought the page to GAN will forgive me, I hope, for saying that I shan't be rushing to book for any London revival of this piece – to each his own. Tim riley (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all the introspection that we editors have had with this article, I am not surprised you don't have many specifics left for us to address. I am wondering if that means I should take this to WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Shall add to GA page and amend article talk page accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]